Leftists know who they are. I'm not sure you do. Well, I guess if your vote doesn't count there's no reason to sweat it. Similarly, keeping your terminology simple: don't be surprised as the world continues not to correspond to your positions then.

Who cares about Chicago? You don't live there

Oh, and in two sentences that's a very fine summary of criminality you've produced. Not quite ethnically loaded, but pushing the line. There are studies done in a discipline called sociology which suggests that your first two descriptors--if total--do certainly predispose people toward a very [I]narrow[I] and [I]individualistic[I] type of criminality.

There are other forms you know. Even if there weren't, I've yet to see you offer a single proposal (other than more police apparently) as a solution to the sort of personal criminality that makes your radar.

Misunderstood? What are we in the seventies. Did you just come off an afternoon of watching PBS?

Quote:

I'm not sure you do

Come now. Being disagreeable for the sake of being disagreeable is silly.

Quote:

don't be surprised as the world continues not to correspond to your positions then

The 'world' meaning 'you', right? Pffft.

Quote:

Who cares about Chicago? You don't live there.

I don't live in Detroit, Atlanta or Cleveland either.

Quote:

Not quite ethnically loaded, but pushing the line.

Wearing your race glasses I see. Slightly unexpected coming from you.

Quote:

I've yet to see you offer a single proposal (other than more police apparently) as a solution to the sort of personal criminality that makes your radar.

Hmmm. Maybe you don't read good?

The destruction of the inner city family unit is as big a cause in criminality and poverty as there is. You can primarily blame democrats for that. Welfare checks have replaced fathers in inner city minority communities all across this country. But I'm sure you already knew this.

Dems blame the guns. Keep screwing the possibility of a family unit (I mean, really, who are we to judge?), keep the checks coming, award non-beneficial behavior (again, who are we?) and when there are 500+ gun involved murders in Chicago alone in 2012. Social Disrganization, Process and Conflict theories are all effected by crappy welfare policy. Soooo, what's to be done?

Come now. Being disagreeable for the sake of being disagreeable is silly.

The 'world' meaning 'you', right? Pffft.

I don't live in Detroit, Atlanta or Cleveland either.

Wearing your race glasses I see. Slightly unexpected coming from you.

Hmmm. Maybe you don't read good?

The destruction of the inner city family unit is as big a cause in criminality and poverty as there is. You can primarily blame democrats for that. Welfare checks have replaced fathers in inner city minority communities all across this country. But I'm sure you already knew this.

Dems blame the guns. Keep screwing the possibility of a family unit (I mean, really, who are we to judge?), keep the checks coming, award non-beneficial behavior (again, who are we?) and when there are 500+ gun involved murders in Chicago alone in 2012. Social Disrganization, Process and Conflict theories are all effected by crappy welfare policy. Soooo, what's to be done?

Bann guns.

It's not a matter of being disagreeable for its own sake. You use the term "left" in a global or universal sense when, in fact, most of those belonging to a more far-reaching and engaged left wouldn't recognize the issues you ascribe to the left as being theirs at all. At least 75% percent of the time when you use the word left it seems to mean the Democrat down the block--or up the coast. I wouldn't call that left.

No, I'm not wearing race glasses. You're talking about prisons and criminality and then throwing in some social science descriptors. Remind me again which ethnicities are disproportionately represented there?

No, Scott, not the world meaning me. If I meant that, I would say it. As I'm sure you know, there are a vast range of people in the world out there who disagree with you politically on a range of issues. Doesn't matter how much of a stand-up guy you are on a one to one level with a beer in hand. That's not going to change in the coming years except in the countries with emerging neo-fascist populations. You want to argue politics from a so-called position of intelligence and them employ rabid Fox-news style categorical designators. That won't get anyone very far. Who are the commercial sponsors for that audience?

I read well, actually. Don't know about good.

I see. Welfare checks replaced fathers. And things were hunky-dory before that happened right? Sure they were. And now who's wearing the race glasses?

I would blame a host of factors for the disasters that are low-income inner cities and just as many of them come from the so-called right as from the left, but do please keep dumbing down the discussion.

What do you think would happen if you remove all that crappy welfare policy. What's your proposal then? More McDonalds and Wal-Marts? Maybe some new manufacturing industries to send **** to the emerging third worlds?

Of course they are. They disagree with you but because you know you know everything the mere fact they disagree renders them mental.

You're the one claiming that we can recognize the mentally ill from the everyday wacko. So again, how do you propose we do that? Is the militia dude who's arming himself to the teeth to fend off the upcoming UN invasion a paranoid delusional who poses a threat to the public or just a harmless wacko?

Quote:

An assault rifle now meets this definition?

Mostly a term of convenience - then again, what else would you call a weapon that can be used to kill (in the Norway case) ~75 people in just a few minutes? - but technically, according to (albeit very broad and vague) US law, yep, it is.

18 U.S.C. 2332a
(2) the term "weapon of mass destruction" means—
(A) any destructive device as defined in section 921 of this title;
(B) any weapon that is designed or intended to cause death or serious bodily injury through the release, dissemination, or impact of toxic or poisonous chemicals, or their precursors;
(C) any weapon involving a biological agent, toxin, or vector (as those terms are defined in section 178 of this title); or
(D) any weapon that is designed to release radiation or radioactivity at a level dangerous to human life;

18 U.S.C. 921
(4) The term "destructive device" means—
(A) any explosive, incendiary, or poison gas—
(i) bomb,
(ii) grenade,
(iii) rocket having a propellant charge of more than four ounces,
(iv) missile having an explosive or incendiary charge of more than one-quarter ounce,
(v) mine, or
(vi) device similar to any of the devices described in the preceding clauses;

(B) any type of weapon (other than a shotgun or a shotgun shell which the Attorney General finds is generally recognized as particularly suitable for sporting purposes) by whatever name known which will, or which may be readily converted to, expel a projectile by the action of an explosive or other propellant, and which has any barrel with a bore of more than one-half inch in diameter;

Quote:

WTF are you talking about? Can you go by a fully automatic AK47 legally? A Bazooka, SAM or whatever weapons you were on about earlier?

Nope. Why do you think that might be?

Quote:

But I can still go buy ammonium nitrate. So what?

It's now regulated so that you are prevented from buying enough to blow up a building, because that's what we normally do for material that's used to kill a lot of people, regulate it so that it is much, much harder to obtain. Except for guns. Then the solution to gun violence is more guns. Doesn't make a whole lot of sense, does it.

Quote:

Nothing trumps your rights to whatever it is you think. Not the 2nd amendment or anything else. Nothing.

um, right now the 2nd Amendment is trumping our rights, isn't it.

Quote:

Are you beginning to see why certain groups of law abiding citizens fear people like you?

We're not the ones with the guns nor believe that government is out to get us nor believe that more guns make for a safer society. We're not the ones who are arming themselves in preparation to overthrow the government. We're not the ones who think that the deaths of schoolchildren is an acceptable tradeoff for the rights of people to own guns. We're not the ones who value inanimate objects over people's lives. That's you and your people. Are you beginning to see why certain groups of law abiding citizens fear people like you?

btw I'd like to point out that there are now many more of us than there are of you.

Trample the constitution as you see fit. You really should be in politics.

You should read the US constitution sometime. Maybe some supreme court decisions too.

Prohibition was once constitutional too. It's not anymore, is it. Besides, isn't the constitution a living, breathing document, as you like to say? Me, I think it's a piece of paper written 250 years ago by a bunch of dudes who, smart and foresighted as they were, couldn't possibly imagine a world as it exists today, or the weaponry that would be available - do you really think they had Bushmasters in mind when they wrote the 2nd Amendment? In other words, it's a wee bit outdated, unless you think the 3rd Amendment is still relevant as well.

The world has changed. Time to repeal the 2nd Amendment and treat guns solely as a regulatory issue and not as a constitutional one.

It's not a matter of being disagreeable for it's own sake. You use the term "left" in a global or universal sense when, in fact, most of those belonging to a more far-reaching and engaged left wouldn't recognize the issues you ascribe to the left as being theirs at all. At least 75% percent of the time when you use the word left it seems to mean the Democrat down the block--or up the coast. I wouldn't call that left.

No, I'm not wearing race glasses. You're talking about prisons and criminality and then throwing in some social science descriptors. Remind me again which ethnicities are disproportionately represented there.

I read well, actually. Don't know about good.

I see. Welfare checks replaced fathers. But you're not wearing race glasses. And things were hunky-dory before that happened right? Sure they were. And now who's wearing the race glasses?

I would blame a host of factors for the disasters that are low-income inner cities and just as many of them come from the so-called right as from the left, but do please keep dumbing down the discussion.

What do you think would happen if you remove all that crappy welfare policy. What's your proposal then? More McDonalds and Wal-Marts? Maybe some new manufacturing industries to send **** to the emerging third worlds?

Quote:

I see. Welfare checks replaced fathers. But you're not wearing race glasses. And things were hunky-dory before that happened right? Sure they were. And now who's wearing the race glasses?

Not just race. Speaking primarily about inner city here. I don't know what your definition of hunky dory is, but things were and are monumentally better for those inner city kids born to a married mother and father. That's true for all races.

Quote:

I would blame a host of factors for the disasters that are low-income inner cities and just as many of them come from the so-called right as from the left, but do please keep dumbing down the discussion.

Cool. Rattle some off for me.

Quote:

What do you think would happen if you remove all that crappy welfare policy

Yes. The dangers of hooking the unsuspecting on the govt hand-outs. Really creates more problems than it solves, doesn't it?

You're the one claiming that we can recognize the mentally ill from the everyday wacko. So again, how do you propose we do that? Is the militia dude who's arming himself to the teeth to fend off the upcoming UN invasion a paranoid delusional who poses a threat to the public or just a harmless wacko?

Mostly a term of convenience - then again, what else would you call a weapon that can be used to kill (in the Norway case) ~75 people in just a few minutes? - but technically, according to (albeit very broad and vague) US law, yep, it is.

It's now regulated so that you are prevented from buying enough to blow up a building, because that's what we normally do for material that's used to kill a lot of people, regulate it so that it is much, much harder to obtain. Except for guns. Then the solution to gun violence is more guns. Doesn't make a whole lot of sense, does it.

um, right now the 2nd Amendment is trumping our rights, isn't it.

We're not the ones with the guns nor believe that government is out to get us nor believe that more guns make for a safer society. We're not the ones who are arming themselves in preparation to overthrow the government. We're not the ones who think that the deaths of schoolchildren is an acceptable tradeoff for the rights of people to own guns. We're not the ones who value inanimate objects over people's lives. That's you and your people. Are you beginning to see why certain groups of law abiding citizens fear people like you?

btw I'd like to point out that there are now many more of us than there are of you.

Prohibition was once constitutional too. It's not anymore, is it. Besides, isn't the constitution a living, breathing document, as you like to say? Me, I think it's a piece of paper written 250 years ago by a bunch of dudes who, smart and foresighted as they were, couldn't possibly imagine a world as it exists today, or the weaponry that would be available - do you really think they had Bushmasters in mind when they wrote the 2nd Amendment? In other words, it's a wee bit outdated, unless you think the 3rd Amendment is still relevant as well.

The world has changed. Time to repeal the 2nd Amendment and treat guns solely as a regulatory issue and not as a constitutional one.

Quote:

You're the one claiming that we can recognize the mentally ill from the everyday wacko. So again, how do you propose we do that?

Odd then that most of the recent cases of mass murder by gun have the shooter with a diagnosed mental illness. I think an undiagnosed brain tumor may have been contributory in one of the cases.

Are you telling me that there's no possible improvement to diagnosis and treatment of mental illness/disorders?

Quote:

Nope. Why do you think that might be?

Because I don't go around saying guns are unregulated.

Quote:

It's now regulated so that you are prevented from buying enough to blow up a building, because that's what we normally do for material that's used to kill a lot of people, regulate it so that it is much, much harder to obtain.

Yeah. I have to go to three of four stores over a couple of weeks.

Quote:

um, right now the 2nd Amendment is trumping our rights, isn't it.

How has the 2nd amendment trumped your rights? I'm just dying to know.

Quote:

We're not the ones with the guns nor believe that government is out to get us nor believe that more guns make for a safer society.

All of this is in contrast to the founding fathers of this country. They escaped what you embrace. Rich, this.

Quote:

Besides, isn't the constitution a living, breathing document,

Absolutely not. I have no idea how you could have thought otherwise.

Quote:

Me, I think it's a piece of paper written 250 years ago by a bunch of dudes who, smart and foresighted as they were, couldn't possibly imagine a world as it exists today,

Meaning you think you're smarter than they were. You are not. Trust me on that point.

Plus, when kids swim they breathe more emitting more green house gasses.

We can save kids and the planet. Truly a win-win.

That is a horrific tally compared to the ~350 people killed by rifles every year. Not assault rifles, all rifles. One, with a tiny bit of thought and perhaps the experience of actually hefting something like an AR-15 to find out it's not like the movies, might be tempted to draw the conclusion that rifles simply are not a good choice for the average perpetrator. One might suspect that it's all an attempt by the gun grabbers to get their foot in the door so they can march forward to their ultimate goal of gutting the Bill of Rights.

Obviously we should ban assault swimming pools.

__________________
"Listen, my son. Trust no one! You can count on no one but yourself. Improve your skills, son. Harden your body. Become a number one man. Do not ever let anyone beat you!" -- Gekitotsu! Satsujin ken

In any case I'm not scared of being robbed, it sucks, but that's all. Wild scenarios such as you portray are mostly the stuff of Hollywood fantasy. If someone entered my place with a gun while I was there, then I guess it would be up to fate as to the outcome. It doesn't cost me sleep though. I'm a fatalist in this sense.

__________________
"Listen, my son. Trust no one! You can count on no one but yourself. Improve your skills, son. Harden your body. Become a number one man. Do not ever let anyone beat you!" -- Gekitotsu! Satsujin ken

Plus, when kids swim they breathe more emitting more green house gasses.

We can save kids and the planet. Truly a win-win.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BroDeal

That is a horrific tally compared to the ~350 people killed by rifles every year. Not assault rifles, all rifles. One, with a tiny bit of thought and perhaps the experience of actually hefting something like an AR-15 to find out it's not like the movies, might be tempted to draw the conclusion that rifles simply are not a good choice for the average perpetrator. One might suspect that it's all an attempt by the gun grabbers to get their foot in the door so they can march forward to their ultimate goal of gutting the Bill of Rights.

Obviously we should ban assault swimming pools.

but only the pools with a deep end, really. i'm not against wading pools